March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 176048 : March 11, 2009]
DR. TWILA G. PUNSALAN, PROF FELICIA I. YEBAN, DR. BENILDA L. SANTOS, DR. ZENAIDA Q. REYES, DR. REBECCA C. NUEVA ESPANA, PROF. MYRA VILLA D. NICOLAS, DR. MA. CARMELA T. MANCAO, DR. ADELAIDA C. GINES, PROF ANTONIO G. DACANAY, PROF. GRACE C. CHAN, DR. LETICIA V. CATRIS, PROF ELVIRA A. ASUAN, AND PROF. RODERICK M. AGUIRRE V. THE PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY ("PNU"), HON. ATTY. LUTGARDO B. BARBO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS NEWLY INSTALLED PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY. HON. NENALYN P. DEFENSOR, HON. NILO L. ROSAS, HON. SEN. JUAN FLAVIER. HON. CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA A. VILLAR, HON. ERLINDA M. CAPONES, HON. DINAH F. MINDO, HON. DIONY V. VARELA, HON. MARK ANTHONY N. OLORES, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 March 2009: G.R. No. 176048 (Dr. Twila G. Punsalan, Prof Felicia I. Yeban, Dr. Benilda L. Santos, Dr. Zenaida Q. Reyes, Dr. Rebecca C. Nueva Espana, Prof. Myra Villa D. Nicolas, Dr. Ma. Carmela T. Mancao, Dr. Adelaida C. Gines, Prof Antonio G. Dacanay, Prof. Grace C. Chan, Dr. Leticia V. Catris, Prof Elvira A. Asuan, and Prof. Roderick M. Aguirre v. The Philippine Normal University ("PNU"), Hon. Atty. Lutgardo B. Barbo, in his capacity as newly installed President of the Philippine Normal University. Hon. Nenalyn P. Defensor, Hon. Nilo L. Rosas, Hon. Sen. Juan Flavier. Hon. Congresswoman Cynthia A. Villar, Hon. Erlinda M. Capones, Hon. Dinah F. Mindo, Hon. Diony V. Varela, Hon. Mark Anthony N. Olores, in their capacities as members of the Board of Regents of the Philippine Normal University).-This is a Rule 45 petition appealing the RTC's Order which granted the motion to dismiss[2] Hied by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The Board of Regents (BOR) of Philippine Normal University (PNU) appointed Lutgardo Barbo as university president. Petitioners questioned the appointment, claiming that Barbo was not qualified for the position. Petitioner Dr. Twiia Punsalan was one of the shortlisted nominees to the post while the rest of the petitioners are members of the faculty and staff. Petitioners sent a letter to the BOR questioning the appointment of Barbo. They claimed that the lowering of the qualification standards for university president violated Civil Service rules. The BOR treated the letter as a motion for reconsideration which they subsequently denied. Petitioners filed a petition[3] for Quo Warranto and for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC. They alleged that Barbo is usurping the post of university president. Likewise, they alleged that the BOR committed grave abuse of discretion when they appointed Barbo to the post. The OSG filed a motion to dismiss claiming that petitioners do not have any right to institute a quo warranto proceeding. Likewise, the OSG also alleged that grave abuse of discretion can only be committed by an administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial powers. Lastly, the OSG claimed that there is no cause of action. The RTC dismissed the case on the following grounds: lack o[ cause of action; the petitioners do not have any vested right over the position of university president; and the BOR did not exercise a quasi-judicial function in appointing Barbo as president. Thus, the petition for quo warranto and certiorari under Rule 65 was dismissed. A quo warranto proceeding involves an action for the usurpation of a public office, position, or franchise which is brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.[4] Thus, it must be instituted by the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The instant petition readily showed that the quo warranto proceeding was instituted by private individuals and the filing of such was even opposed by the Solicitor General. Likewise, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action, raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[5] PNU being a university, does not exercise quasi-judicial functions. When the BOR appointed Barbo, it could not have committed the grave abuse of discretion as contemplated by Rule 65. Assuming arguendo that Punsalan has standing to institute the quo warranto proceeding, the petition must still be denied because she had already retired from government service, thus, rendering the present petition moot and academic. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error on the part of the Regional Trial Court in dismissing the case, the Court accordingly denies the instant petition and AFFIRMS in toto the Order of the Regional Trial Court dated 22 December 2006. WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga. Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr. and Arturo D. Brion. Members. Second Division, this 11th day of March, 2009. Very truly yours. (Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 58-71: Dated 22 December 2006 and penned by Judge Jansen R. Rodriguez [2] Id. at 197-215. [3] Id. at 152-196. [4] RULES OF COURT, Rule 66. Sec. 1. [5] Espinoza v.�Provincial Adjudicator of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Office of Pampanga. G.R. No. 147525, 26 February 2007. 516 SCRA 635. 639.
